On Wednesday 21 June 2006 01:56, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> George Danchev wrote:
> > I believe that the reason to have that in Sofia-SIP's
> >libsofia-sip-ua/su/strtoull.c is that it comes that way from the original
> >contributors like University of California and Sun Microsystems. Whom
> > legal writer counsel do you suggest to talk to ? UCB & Sun's or the
> > Sofia-SIP upstream which code is licensed under LGPL ? I don't believe
> > that that clause makes it non-free as of DFSG, but if you think
> > otherwise, please express your points.
>
> The "restricted rights" thing is just fine and free as far as the DFSG,
> IMHO, and I've never heard anyone on debian-legal assert otherwise: the
> "restricted rights" clause simply asserts that the US Government doesn't
> get any more rights than anyone else.
>
> The "restricted rights" thing might possibly be a GPL compatibility issue,
> but I'd ask the FSF (www.gnu.org) what they think about that. I would
> guess not, but what do I know.
I see. This appears to be fine. Thanks for contacting FSF for me , though.
> ----
> Unfortunately, there are DFSG-freeness issues in the package.
>
> >From COPYRIGHTS:
> >The package also contains code derived from RFC 3174 (SHA1). The code is
> >distributed with the following copyright notice by the Internet Society:
> >
> >Partly copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
> >
> >This document [RFC3174] and translations of it may be copied and furnished
> >to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
> >assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
>
> ...
>
> This is a notorious problem. This is the RFC license, and it's non-free.
> It's non-free because it only grants permission to make derivative works
> which "comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation".
> To be DFSG-free, it must grant permission to make derivative works in
> general, even if they are for other purposes. In fact it explicitly
> prohibits other modifications. :-(
>
> (In addition, the "Internet Society" copyright statement may well be false,
> if the RFC was written in the US by authors not employed by the Internet
> Society. The RFCs are unfortunately a nest of copyright incompetence.)
>
> Perhaps the usage is small enough that the code is not really a derivative
> work of RFC3174. If you're lucky. If not, there's probably an alternate
> SHA1 implementation somewhere which doesn't use the RFC sample code, which
> could be substituted; the actual cipher almost certainly qualifies as an
> uncopyrightable "fact".
> ----
Aha, these are the files:
libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/sofia-sip/sha1.h
libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/sha1.c
> All the other licenses are fine.
Good.
> Joe Smith noted two without an explicit right to sell, but the IBM one
> grants the right to "use in any way he or she deems fit", which I think is
> pretty definite permission.
>
> The other says "unrestricted use", which *probably* implies the right
> to sell; I would contact Pekka Pessi and ask if that includes the right to
> sell. If he says "yes", then I'd say it's fine.
This applies to libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/rc4.c, and libsofia-sip-ua/su/getopt.c was
incorrectly mentioned in the COPYRIGHTS, since it does not exist.
Thanks for your help and clarifications!
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB